- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14552 WP No. 24396 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 24396 OF 2024 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: DR. K. SHEKAR S/O. LATE. K. BASAVANYAPPA, PROPRIETOR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SHANTHA NURSING HOME, 5TH PARALLEL ROAD, DURGIGUDI, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUDHA D.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA EXCISE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, EXCISE OFFICE, D. C. COMPOUND, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 3. SRI. SATHISH KUMAR K.M., S/O. K. B. MANJAPPACHAR, MAJOR, R/AT SUBHADRA BHEEMASHREE NILAYA, KUVEMPU ROAD, OPP Z.P OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14552 WP No. 24396 of 2024 SRI. MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LICENCE DATED 11.07.2024 IN FORM NO. CL-7 BEARING REGISTRATION NO. 2502040030, ISSUED BY THE R-2 TO THE R-3 FOR SALE OF BOTH INDIAN AND FOREIGN LIQUOR IN HOTEL TOWN PALACE AND LODGING, LLR ROAD, MUNICIPAL KHATHA NO. 784/811, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE EXCISE YEAR 2024- 25 (VALID TILL 30.06.2025) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- A, AS THE SAME IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF SEC 5 OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE (GENERAL CONDITIONS OF LICENCES) RULES, 1967. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who runs a nursing home within the vicinity of a property for which CL-7 license is issued for the first time for the excise year 2023-24, is aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 25.07.2024 issued by the second respondent. The second - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14552 WP No. 24396 of 2024 respondent has issued this impugned Endorsement rejecting the petitioner's objection for renewal of license in favour of the third respondent. 2. Ms. Sudha D, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been running a nursing home for the last 15 years and though the CL-7 license was issued for the first time for the excise year 2023-24, the petitioner has been opposing and her objection is now considered by the second respondent only to be rejected unjustifiably. The learned Counsel, to buttress her case that the petitioner indeed runs a nursing home within the immediate vicinity, proposes to rely upon the Certificate of Registration [Annexure-G] issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services and the Corrigendum issued by the Environmental Officer, Shimoga. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14552 WP No. 24396 of 2024 3. Sri Mohan Bhat, the learned counsel for the third respondent, and Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, for the first and the second respondents, submit that in terms of Explanation-II to Rule-5 of the Karnataka Excise [General Conditions of License] Rules, 1967 licenses cannot be issued when there is a private nursing home with a minimum of 30 beds for treatment of inpatients within 100 meters from the place for which license is to be issued. 4. Sri Mohan Bhat and Sri Vikas Rojipura emphasise that the petitioner can only rely upon Annexure-H to contend that the nursing home has a facility of 30 beds and this is issued only in June 2024 much after the license is issued and renewed. The learned Counsel and the learned Additional Government Advocate also submit that even if the petitioner could otherwise be aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, must avail alternative - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14552 WP No. 24396 of 2024 remedy as would be permissible under Section 61[2] of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 5. This Court must observe that the rival submissions show a question that must be examined on facts and that can be examined by the appellate authority if the petitioner avails the appeal remedy. The petitioner has not made out any ground for interference at this stage under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, the petition stands rejected subject to all just exceptions in law. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV